In this paper I analyze the structure of urban public space from a phenomenologicalpoint of view: how people experience urban public space both as a perceptual field andas a setting for social behavior. Many studies of urban morphology examine spatialform primarily through plan views (for example, Trancik, 1986). This view is abstract,distant, quite two-dimensional and static. Much other research analyses the pointof view of an observer moving through urban spaces (for example, Cullen, 1971).A limitation of both approaches is that they focus very much on the visual qualitiesof space and on how these qualities are represented graphically. They typically ignorewhat people are doing within spaces, and what role the spaces play in their action andinteraction (de Certeau, 1993). Two things are distinctive about the phenomenology ofurban space. First, it is relatively dense and enclosed; expansive spaces and views areatypical. Second, most other people encountered in public are strangers (Lofland, 1973;1998). Under these conditions, experience of both urban space and people within it ischaracterized by significant constraints of scale and orientation, and by exposure to theunfamiliar and unexpected.

DiscussionI attempt to develop a comprehensive and robust model of urban structure from aphenomenological and behavioral perspective. I do so by examining similarities anddifferences between the findings of two extensive empirical studies of users' experiencesof urban public space: one by Lynch (1960), primarily examining people's perceptions,and another by myself, which focuses on people's behavior.

Lynch's (1960) model of the structure of urban perception provides a convenientstarting point for understanding the key elements of urban space vis-a© -vis socialexperience. His methodology and findings are well known. His groundbreaking central

The shape of urban experience: a reevaluation of Lynch'sfive elements

Quentin StevensThe Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, 22 Gordon Street,London WC1H 0QB, England; e-mail: q.stevens@ucl.ac.ukReceived 18 February 2005; in revised form 20 January 2006

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2006, volume 33, pages 803 ^ 823

Abstract. In this paper I attempt to develop a comprehensive, robust model of urban morphologyfrom a phenomenological and behavioral perspective. I do so by comparing the findings of twoextensive empirical studies of users' experiences of urban public space: one primarily examiningpeople's perceptions in relation to the practical task of wayfinding, and the other my own researchinto people's playful behavior in Melbourne, London, Berlin, and New York. Lynch himself calledattention to ``our delight ... in ambiguity, mystery ... surprise and disorder'', but little is known aboutwhat role specific spatial conditions might have in framing such experiences, or indeed about thediversity of impractical activities people actually pursue in urban spaces. With this paper I seek to fillthese gaps. Three elements common to both studies (paths, nodes, and edges) describe the funda-mental topological structure of space in relation to movement and visibility. I focus on the four spatialelements which differ between the two models (landmarks, districts, thresholds, and props). Fieldobservations illustrate ways in which the latter two spatial elements frame particular noninstrumental,`playful' experiences which are characteristic of the urban condition: spontaneous encounters withstrangers; unfamiliar and risky bodily experiences; distraction, and interpreting new meanings in theurban fabric.

DOI:10.1068/b32043

finding was that the mental maps which people use to help them find their waythrough cities are composed of five fundamental, reasonably invariant elements: paths,edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks.

Lynch's study focused on the very practical task of wayfinding. He explicitlyassesses the information people perceive about urban form according to its usefulness.People need perceive only sufficient detail to serve two narrow, predetermined func-tional objectives: correctly identifying their relative location, and moving toward theirgoal. In the search to develop a more general framework for understanding how spatialmorphology frames perception and behavior, Lynch's methodology has at least threekinds of limitations, which can be termed definitional, morphological, and behavioral.

First, there is the issue of what constitutes an `element' of `urban structure'. Theelements identified in Lynch's account of the mental framework for wayfinding are notdefinitively spatial; his description readily mixes (1) objective formal properties of space,(2) experiences of spatial form as it is moved through, and (3) socially conditionedperceptions, as highlighted in the following quote from his later work:

` People use many different clues to establish (environmental) structureöthe rec-ognition of characteristic form[1] or activity[3] in areas or centers, sequentiallinkages[2], directional relations[1, 2], time[3] and distance[1], landmarks[1, 2, 3],path or edge continuities[1], gradients[1], panoramas[2], and many others''(Lynch, 1981, page 135).The aim of this paper is to focus primarily on the topological conditions of spaceöits

objective structure as a geometrical system of relations such as proximity, connection,direction, and enclosure (Lynch, 1960; Norberg-Schulz, 1985)öand to examine howspatial perception is related to forms of bodily action, whilst largely disregardingsocially conditioned knowledge about spatial structure. The approach reflects theorigins of topological analysis in Euler's study of how people at leisure promenadedaround the seven bridges of the city of Ko« nigsberg (Amarala and Ottino, 2004): Eulerreduced the city's bridge-and-island structure to a network which ` consists of just twoabstract elements: coordinate points and their connecting lines'' (Kittler, 1996, page 719).

Second, perceptions which people may have of other kinds of spatial features in thecity, and ways they move or act in relation to these features, are not useful informationfor Lynch's study of wayfinding. Third, Lynch does not ask people about their percep-tion of spaces or spatial conditions in areas in which they pursue other kinds ofactivities. It should be specifically highlighted that he is not interested in the spatialityof interactions.

It is important to recognize that Lynch was studying the structure of images ofcities at a large scale, as remembered and drawn, and not the structure of citiesthemselves, as singular spaces inhabited and used. By focusing on formal identity,he understates the fact that the symbolic meaning of urban form and its role in theactions of the observer heighten its significance (Lynch, 1960). His concept of amental map privileges two features: the detached, abstracted distance of the aerialstandpoint, and visibility (de Certeau, 1993). As a research method, the focus ondrawn and mental maps tends to generate knowledge which suppresses the nuancesand contingencies of people's diverse ways of experiencing and acting in space,overstating the similarities among findings. Such representations are ideological,and express social order as well as helping to reproduce it (Lefebvre, 1991). Lefebvre(1996, page 147) also emphasizes that urban dwellers do not use only vision; they need``to hear, to touch, to taste and ... to gather these perceptions in a `world'.''

It is thus inappropriate to use Lynch's categories as a model of the total phenom-enological structure of urban space. Lynch was clearly aware of the limitations of hisown findings in experiential terms (Lynch, 1981). He was merely noting the structure of

804 Q Stevens

how people remembered cities, not promoting it. Wayfinding is a functional objectivewhich has limited importance to the general well-being of society, and legibility is notan unassailable end in itself (Carmona et al, 2003). Furthermore, it is not necessarilydesirable to shape space to conform to such a model. Unfortunately many designerstake Lynch's work for normative prescription rather than analysis (Norberg-Schulz,1985; Sternberg, 2000). Lynch's findings, intended to shed light on the `problem' ofbecoming lost, have become a justification for producing visually well-ordered,`Hausmannized' urban social space, which serves aspirations to depict and promotea well-ordered society (Debord, 1994).

Lynch (1981, page 143) noted of congruence, transparency, and legibility in urbansettings that ` none of these ... are absolute desiderata.'' He observes (1960, pages 109 ^110) that ` the function of a good urban environment may not be simply to facilitateroutine trips, not to support meanings and feelings already possessed. Quite as importantmay be its role as a guide and a stimulus for new exploration.'' In his later reconsiderationof his 1960 work, he called attention to ` our delight ... in ambiguity, mystery ... surpriseand disorder'' (Lynch, 1991, pages 250 ^ 252). Comparatively little is known about the roleof urban structure in framing more impractical aspects of urban experience: theunexpected, unfamiliar, and incomprehensible, spontaneity, distraction, and risk.

The work of the Situationist International provides one clear counterpoint to theaims and the methods pioneered by Lynch. In terms of mapping, Debord's collage TheNaked City, composed from scattered fragments of a map of Paris, ` contests a domi-nant construction of urban space as homogenous'', highlighting instead its ` radicaldiscontinuities and divisions'', its unknown areas, and its availability for playful appro-priation (McDonough, 1994, page 69). The Situationists focused on ` the positionalityof the viewer'' which sociologists had ` sacrificed in order to obtain a coherent', `logical'view of the city'' through the map (McDonough, 1994, page 69). To explore the city, theSituationists devised an experimental practice, the derive: walking as `drifting'. Theywould ` abandon, for an undefined period of time, the motives generally admitted foraction and movement ... abandoning themselves to the attractions of the terrain andthe encounters proper to it'' (Debord, 1996, page 22). In action, as in mapping, they` escaped the imaginary totalisations of the eye and instead chose a kind of blindness''(McDonough, 1994, page 73). Their approach deliberately circumvented the idea thatboth movement and memory are functional, as well as the dominance of vision, all ofwhich lie at the heart of Lynch's study. Jameson (1984, page 90) points out that Lynch'sown research approach is not inherently ideological: he sees the results of cognitivemapping as ` itineraries rather than as maps; diagrams organized around the stillsubject-centred or existential journey of the traveler.'' Enriching and critiquing theLynchian phenomenology of urban space requires scrutiny and description of the qualitiesof people's itinerariesöthe active, engaged role of people's bodies in motion throughurban space (de Certeau, 1993).

MethodologyTo understand how urban form might frame experiences which are unexpected,unfamiliar, spontaneous, and risky, the second study described here examined non-instrumental social behavior, or play, in urban public spaces. This study drew upon afour-part definition of play (table 1, over), which frames a far broader, richer concep-tion of urban spatial experience, and which is in quite intentional contradistinction tothe everyday instrumentality of wayfinding. The play of children was a relatively minorcomponent of this study, on the grounds that it has already been heavily researched,and because it is generally agreed to be their accepted mode of conduct in public,rather than something aberrant, counterproductive, and inexplicable.

The shape of urban experience 805

The study centered on unobtrusive field observation and photography of anonymouspersons in public spaces in central Melbourne, Australia, throughout the summers of1998/99, 1999/2000, and 2000/01 and in the central district of Berlin throughoutsummer 1999, and was supported by further observations in London and New York.The research involved seeking out and recording a large number of instances of publicplay and studying remnant behavioral traces, as defined against an extensive list offavorable sites, spatial conditions, times, and social occasions, derived from the generaldefinitions given in table 1, as well as a literature review of earlier attempts to locateand document noninstrumental forms of social behavior in public (Debord, 1996;Gehl, 1987; Gehl and City of Melbourne, 1994; Goffman, 1982; Whyte, 1980; 1988).The systematic observational survey of Melbourne, amounting to seventy walkedcircuits of the central activities district, was structured to capture activity on differentdays of the week and times of day and night, embracing both peak and off-peak uses,and to encompass obvious sites for spending free time as well as many hidden andoverlooked spaces.

Rather than seeking to quantify play, which would clearly vary greatly from oneculture, site, or season to another, the research sought to collect an optimally largeopportunity sample which could provide thick description of the general characteristicsof public play, particularly in terms of any morphological features which seem tosupport it, the spatiality of social interactions, and the ways in which people's bodiesengage with built-form features. Observed behavior was examined in relation to ananalysis of the objective physical and sensory conditions under which it occurred (suchas changes of level and lines of sight and movement, texture of surfaces, noise levels,light, and shadow). Because the definition of play is socially constructed by actors andaudiences as they take part in it, analysis also included an anonymous observer'sinterpretation of the meanings of a given action, in relation to the broad symboliccontext of the space in which it was performed (Bateson, 1972; Thrift, 1997).

The latter study illustrates a range of person ^ environment relationships whichare quite different to those of Lynch. The methodology focuses on patterns of activityquite complementary to those of Lynch, in terms of how activity relates to theopportunities which space provides: purposeful, efficient movements have their coun-terpart in those which are whimsical, unsystematic, and wasteful of energy; an actor'sclear and decisive responses to unique spatial forms are paired with those which areequivocal, vague, and changing. Taken together, the two studies provide a rich insightinto the ecological' relation between perception and environment (Gibson, 1979). Theyencompass a very wide scope of the `affordances' which the urban built environmentoffers for human perception and also for action, both practical and otherwise.

In the latter study playful activities in public were generally framed by one of fivekinds of spatial contexts: paths, boundaries, thresholds, intersections, and props. Theways in which each of these five kinds of spaces served to concretize distinctiveconditions of spontaneity, confrontation, distraction, and risk, through which playfulactions and social interactions were possible, will be suggested below. As is true ofLynch's own study, a small number of observations of play behavior were not located

Table 1. A working definition of play in urban public spaces.

Actions lacking clear instrumental benefitsSeparation from everyday experience (either spatially through boundaries, or socially through

rules or special roles)A four-part typology of the forms playful activities take: competition, chance, simulation, and

vertigo (Caillois, 1961)Exploratory encounters with strangers

806 Q Stevens

in any of these kinds of settings. Following Lynch (1960), it may be argued that thesefive key spatial types constitute the `public' or `group' conditions which, for most peopleand in most instances, provide the site of play. Although there are of course variations,a large sample of observations (N � 484) suggest that these constitute our basic spatial` equipment for living'', acting as ` an organizer of activity'' (Lynch, 1960, pages 124, 126).

This conceptual framework was clearly informed by Lynch's framework, but givesit more inductive treatment than has often been the case with later researchers, whotypically analyze and understand a given spatial context in Lynch's terms, rather thantest the ideas themselves (for example, de Jonge, 1962). The remainder of this paper is acomparison of the models of environmental structure emerging from these two studies(table 2), with primary focus on their differences.

Places both perceived and used: the existential structure of urban spaceThree kinds of spatial elements were identified in both studies: paths, nodes or inter-sections, and edges or boundaries. The concurrent significance of these kinds of spacesfor perception, memory, and playful action indicates their key importance in physical,perceptual, and psychological terms. Norberg-Schulz (1971; 1980) suggests that thesethree elements of spatial structure are not merely cognitive. They are in his termsexistential': they organize human dwelling in the landscape at all scales. They are forNorberg-Schulz the fundamental topological structure of space in relation to move-ment and visibility, and they define continuity, choice, and enclosure (respectively). Inthis paper I illustrate the reasons why this subclassification of Lynch's five elementsdiffers from that recently proposed by Dalton and Bafna (2003), through an analysis ofhow actors use and perceive space.

The following brief comments on these three elements suggests ways in which theirframing of spatial cognition provides cues and stimuli for playful behavior which wasobserved around them.

PathsLynch (1960) notes that paths of unusual narrowness or width attract attention. Manyforms of play observed responded to particular experiential conditions of pathways: thenarrowness of laneways, high bridges over water, or surfaces which are smooth orrough or sloped or stepped. Such properties are perceived mostly through the body,rather than through the eye. People's travel was not always seen to be efficient:people wander; they skateboard and cycle, reshaping their experience of the city,moving faster or slowerömaking it more stimulating, perhaps more dangerous,discovering its potentials.

The separation of pedestrian pathways from vehicular traffic encourages playful useof public space, and does not merely optimize efficient flows; it allows users to forget thepracticalities of watching out for traffic and to focus on the various other sensationsavailable as they move along a path. People's movement along paths can also have asymbolic dimension. Through public parades, behavior constructs narratives which

Table 2. The elements of urban spatial experience.

Lynch, 1960 Current study

paths pathsnodes intersectionsedges boundarieslandmarks propsdistricts thresholds

The shape of urban experience 807

bring meaning to urban form. Lynch frequently mentions people's sensitivity to thevariety of types and levels of activity which exist along different paths in the city.Clearly such choices offer varied behavioral opportunities.

IntersectionsLynch's (1960, page 72) reference to nodes as being `strategic' immediately indicatestheir behavior potential. They are places of heightened awareness and decisionmaking:people slow down or stop at them, and people make choices about what they do nextand where they are going, thereby defining their itinerary, although not always onpragmatic grounds. People have close encounters with strangers at intersections, some-times quite suddenly and unexpectedly. Intersections may thus be remembered asbodily encountersösmells, sounds, and touchörather than for their visual properties.The body is likely to respond to such sensations instinctively and spontaneouslyinstead of rationally (Gilloch, 1996). Intersections are points of convergence, but alsoof divergence. These spaces provide a broadened field of vision, opening up newoptions for experience and directions for movement. At intersections people can thusbe distracted from instrumental purpose.

BoundariesEdges which are impenetrable to cross movement typically imprint a strong mentalimage (Lynch, 1960). Yet boundary can also be a tactile object which is experienced upclose, and engaged with the body. Playful activities explore the affordances whichboundaries provide, sometimes pushing against them or attempting to move beyondor see beyond them. Boundaries in urban space are not always fixed or absolute, andpeople like to test themselves against them. In public performances, for example, thereis usually some physical border to separate actors from audience, whether a chalk lineor a police barricade; playful attitudes often push beyond such limits, reshaping andredefining space. De Jonge's (1967) description of the `edge effect' illustrates how thiselement of cognitive structure lends structure to social behavior by providing occu-pants with a combination of privacy and good visibility. Clandestine, proscribed playactivities often take advantage of the seclusion of edges.

Norberg-Schulz (1980, page 63) quotes from Venturi (1967, page 88) that: ` Archi-tecture occurs at the meeting of interior and exterior forces of use and space'', andgoes on to note that ``this meeting is expressed in the wall, and in particular in theopenings which connect the two `domains'.'' Norberg-Schulz himself observes that``the inside ^ outside relationship ... constitutes the very essence of architecture''. It isthe boundary of an area which is topological, something which an observer canposition themselves `` `to the front of ', or `to the right of ' ... `at', `on', or `inside' '',rather than the district (Dalton and Bafna, 2003, page 593). The large amount andvariety of playful behavior seen to occur around openings in building facades,particularly doorways, is testament to the experiential possibilities framed by theirarchitecture, as described further in the discussion of thresholds, below.

Image and distanceDistricts and landmarks are the two among Lynch's elements which are not inherentlytopological. They do not have specific formal properties, nor are they defined byimmediate, connective relations to observers. Rather than being relational, they areperceived and remembered for their formal singularity and consistency (Lynch, 1960).What makes these elements mentally imageable is their contrast to the surroundingurban fabric.

808 Q Stevens

DistrictsThe district is a rather different kind of category. It is based on the user's cognition ofan atmosphere, of general and unspecific similarities within an area, and not of aparticular spatial topology or form (Lynch, 1960); districts ` may consist of an endlessvariety of components: texture, space, form, detail, symbol, building type, use, activity,inhabitants, degree of maintenance, topography'' (Lynch, 1960, page 67).

It is questionable whether the memorability of districts comes about directly ornecessarily through their imageabilityömany of these qualities could be distinguishedthrough the other senses, in particular through touch, or may make sense only wheninterpretedöfor example, that a district is busy, or noisy, or that ` all the people havethe same thing in common working there'' (Lynch, 1960, page 67). This `element' seemsto be a catchall for a diverse range of perceptions, many of which are socially con-ditioned, a product of experiences and not just a visible fact. Lynch's (1960, page 75)suggestion that a node may be a `thematic concentration', and not necessarily anintersection of paths, suffers the same conceptual imprecision.

A district differs in one fundamental respect from Lynch's other spatial elements:it is not, as Dalton and Bafna (2003) suggest, a concrete two-dimensional object.Physically, it is relatively unstructured, although there is typically some consistencyto its urban texture and architectural character (Thwaites, 2001). Cognitively, it relieson an accumulation of remembered views and remembered actions. These togethercontribute to the experience of ``a general sense of overall coherence'' (Thwaites,2001, page 252). To the extent that a district does itself have a morphological defi-nition, this is composed of other topological elements. Districts also ``contain withinthemselves ... various paths, nodes and landmarks (which) not only structure theregion internally, they also intensify the identity of the whole by enriching and deep-ening its character'' (Lynch, 1960, page 84). Thus the topology of a district is in largepart understood by recourse to other simpler structures which have a more definiterelation to bodily experience.

Norberg-Schulz (1980, page 59) suggests that ``the presence of a boundary is ofdecisive importance'' for the spatial identity of a district, although district boundariesmay be perceptually weak and variably interpreted (Lynch, 1960). Lynch (1960, page 47)notes that districts are places ` which the observer, mentally enters `inside of '.''Districts are defined experientially by the sense of entering inside a place (Alexanderet al, 1977; Norberg-Schulz, 1971). Understanding the phenomenology of enteringrequires understanding the spatial experience of crossing a boundary. This will betaken up in the discussion of thresholds.

LandmarksLandmarks are ` point references'' for wayfinding which are ` external to the observer''(Lynch, 1960, page 78). Although certain individual landmarks may have a stronginterrelation with key movement pathways (Dalton and Bafna, 2003), landmarks aremostly viewed only from a distance, and ` the observer does not enter into them''(Lynch, 1960, page 48). In Lynch's study landmarks were often perceived at a distance,above the intervening urban fabric; they are `bottomless': ` few people had an accuratesense of where these distant landmarks were and how to make one's way to the base''(Lynch, 1960, page 81). Landmarks aid orientation, but are not sites of direct action.Such findings are the starkest reminder that Lynch is interested in the structure ofwhat is perceived and remembered, not the spatial structure of behavior.

Lynch suggests that landmarks, like districts, can be memorable without neces-sarily having an imageable form. They can be recognized through contrasts ofcleanliness, age, cultural status, or use. Their significance may also be personal

The shape of urban experience 809

(Dalton and Bafna, 2003)öa product not of their visible physical characteristics, but ofmeaning or use. One of Lynch's examples of a landmark is ` the very antithesis of visualimageability ... it is completely unrecognizable to the stranger'' (Lynch, 1960, page 81).This is particularly odd considering his methodological claim that the maps of urbanstructure drawn by outside experts have a strong correspondence to those of occupants.The Los Angeles Civic Center Hall of Records is remembered because its siting andscale contrast with its surroundings (Lynch, 1960), but this says nothing about its ownformal character and how this might frame distinctive behavioral possibilities.

An observed example of urban play in my own study illustrates the limitedpossibilities of interaction with landmarks. A man performs a private religious ritualin the middle of Alexanderplatz, Berlin's civic focus (figure 1). He kneels facingtoward the city's television tower, visible over intervening buildings. He alternates

Figure 1. Man praying to television tower, Alexanderplatz, Berlin.

810 Q Stevens

between exalting, cursing, and paying penance to this landmark. Visible from WestBerlin, the tower was a prominent symbol of the technical prowess of the socialist East.Locals are also familiar with the cross-shaped reflection which the sun makes on thetower's spherical observation deck: the `Pope's revenge'. Though apparently oblivious toterrestrial concerns, this man kneels amidst the constant pedestrian flow between trainstations on the opposing corners of the plaza. Within this setting the television towercan be seen only high in the sky, and below there is much competition for people'sattention. The man's theatrical gestures are necessary to draw this distant object ontothe stage. Being far removed and bottomless limits the affordances which such anobject provides people for interaction; it lacks experiential depth. The man's pose ofsubjugation emphasizes the intransigence of the landmark: all one can do is point to it,to direct other people's attention beyond the space.

Lynch notes that the recognition of a sequence of landmarks may define a (non-linear) path which is not objectively discernible in the topology of the city. He argues(1960, page 84) that such paths ``are given identity (by) the landmarks distributed alongtheir length.'' Landmarks can provide ` trigger cues whenever turning decisions must bemade'' (page 83). Urban form can also `trigger' many other kinds of memories andemotions, and thus stimulate a wide variety of human movements. Cognition does notemploy only distant visual cues; but also draws upon close, multisensory experienceof the materiality of space. The following discussion of props provides illustration ofthis potential.

Perceiving and acting: what is the ecological structure of urban space?Two elements of urban spatial topology which arose from the study of playful behaviorwere not distinct features in the Lynchian image of the city: props and thresholds.Unlike districts and landmarks, which are conceptual `gestalt' components of anindividual's large-scale mental map, props and thresholds are concrete spatial elementswhich are experienced up close with the body, and which come between variousoccupants of the urban space, mediating their interactions.

PropsThis category encompasses a variety of fixed objects which are to be found withinurban public spaces, such as public artworks, play equipment, and street furniture.Such elements may easily be overlooked as a part of the environmental structurebecause they are small. The inclusion of such localized `urban detail' as signs, trees,doorknobs, and distinctive window curtains within the category of landmarks highlightsthe importance of small-scale objects in facilitating urban wayfinding, particularly inotherwise-repetitive urban topologies (de Jonge, 1962; Lynch, 1960).

Almost anything can provide a cue for turning decisions: the distinctive form ormeaning of a landmark serves only as a trigger for memory. Many activities other thanmovement occur in public space, and this category concentrates on the fixed details ofurban space which people were observed to actually use. The term `prop' emphasizesthat these objects are employed in a variety of social acts and, in particular, perform-ances for the benefit of others. Props triangulate social interaction between strangers(Whyte, 1980; 1988). Three kinds of playful behavior involving props will be outlined.

Props are objects which have been added to public settings with the intention ofmaking them more comfortable, by contributing to their function and aesthetics. Yetthey were also observed to make possible and to stimulate a variety of noninstru-mental, exploratory, and risky forms of movement. Skateboarders contest the everydayfunctionality of urban design features such as steps, handrails, planter boxes, bollards,bicycle racks and benches (figure 2, over). Though small, these are challenging physical

The shape of urban experience 811

landscapes which can be explored with the body. They are surfaces against which tostop or slide, which help skaters to accelerate or decelerate or change direction. Theyare things to be jumped or avoided, or in some cases bent and modified. Teenagers alsouse benches and bicycle racks to play `king of the mountain', a competition to occupythe highest point and push opponents off (figure 3). Rows of bollards are used forplaying `leapfrog'.

Props provide affordance for and inspire distinctive forms of movement, whereaslandmarks merely orient movement. These tactile engagements with urban form areclose, detailed, and specific. The sense of touch is strongly oriented in relation to thebody (Borden, 2001; Savage, 1995). Sounds and smells are by contrast spatially vague:although they ` sometimes reinforced visual landmarks ... they did not often seemto constitute landmarks by themselves'' (Lynch, 1960, page 83). Lynch mentions that

Figure 2. Skaters exploring the urban microgeography, Berlin (top left) and Melbourne.

812 Q Stevens

kinesthesia can aid memorability, when people move along curved paths. Skateboardersillustrate a far stronger link between spatial form, kinesthesia, and action, as freelychosen, unnecessary movements produce pleasurable bodily sensations.

Props may also have representational contents which catalyze simulative play.In numerous instances of expressive action, people were observed pretending they(and the prop) were something else or somewhere else. Props sit on the stage of urbanpublic space; they contribute to the framing of spatial relations between people, andlend meanings to their performative displays.

In London's Leicester Square, memorial statues (Shakespeare, Hogarth, Newton,Chaplin) and the surrounding theatres and cinemas prompt street performers to dressup and stand on pedestals, pretending to be statues of film characters (from a nearbypremiere), local characters (Sherlock Holmes), and imaginary figures (figure 4, over).Leicester Square's concentration of special uses make it memorable (Lynch, 1960).In behavioral terms, this use also does much more, lending particular significance tothe props in the space, and gathering a sympathetic audience. Another simulative propis three bronze statues of businessmen at Melbourne's busiest pedestrian intersection.People play with these sculptures in many different ways, interacting with them as ifthey were real people, giving them new roles and identities by adding clothes, balloonsor cigarettes (figure 5, over). Rather than just perceiving existing meanings in the builtenvironment, people add meaning to it, through playful interpretation.

In both of these sites, ` elements located at junctions ... automatically ... derivespecial prominence from their location'' (Lynch, 1960, page 73). Yet props do much

Figure 3. Playing `King of the Mountain' on a bike rack, Bourke Street Mall, Melbourne.

The shape of urban experience 813

more than just enhance wayfinding. They inspire and locate particular experiences andactions. Lynch's (1960) consideration of how the various elements of the city imagecombine in people's experience is very brief. As one expanded contribution: writingabout `the relationship between buildings, monuments and their plazas', Sitte (1986)insists that monuments should be placed in peripheral locations in plazas, to allowclose inspection, rather than isolating them amidst vehicular traffic. Of Michelangelo'sDavid, originally sited outside the Palazzo Vecchio, Sitte remarks on ` the relativeintimacy of its corner of the plaza''; ready comparison can be made there betweenthe statue's exaggerated scale and pedestrians passing close by. Avowedly focusing on`artistic principles' Sitte's analysis also shows keen attention to various experientialaffordances of particular spatial layouts.

A third set of playful uses of props is when the prescribed meanings of publicartworks are ignored, in favor of bodily experiences which their physical form enables.Another representational artwork on Melbourne's footpath is a family of statues `peer-ing' through glass into an office tower foyer. Young children passing by run over to thestatues. Rather than mimicking the statues or responding to their poses, the childrensqueeze themselves through the narrow gap between the statues and the glass. Thenegotiation of the space itself provides the excitement. They experience close bodilyengagement with a compressed, darkened space. Such incidents are of particularsignificance in the context of Lynch's study, because interest in immediate, tactileexperience dominates the visual register, memory, and instrumentality. Such forms ofplay treat a prop as just another physical element of the urban landscape.

Figure 4. Performing as `statues', Leicester Square, London.

814 Q Stevens

Observations of playful behavior involving props reveal a rich scope of interrelationsbetween perception, memory, bodily action, and spatial form. Furthermore, the variedplayful, exploratory actions of people around props lead to the discovery of newpossible interrelations. Rather than perceiving objects merely as instrumental meansto a practical end, people's playful actions seem to pursue the enjoyment of distinctiveenvironmental properties as an end in itself. Props appear to serve desires for sensorypleasure, escape into imagination, testing bodily limits, and engaging with strangers.

These various observations of playful bodily engagement with objects located inurban space provide a preliminary sketch of the scope of behavior which can arisethrough people's active perception of urban landscapes. These small and intricatepieces of built form are concentrated examples of the rich potentials for sensationand movement which exist throughout the urban landscape. In contrast to Lynch'sdepiction of landmarks as distant images which provide a dominating, fixed structureto the experience of moving through urban space, different props may over timecapture attention, lose their significance or change their function, depending on howthey are encountered and put to use. The purpose of a prop is performed by a variety ofactors in front of changing audiences. Further research could explore in more detailthe microgeography of urban space, the way in which built elements structure humanexperience and movement within the scale of the body's reach, the behavioral impor-tance of particular properties such as slope, texture, and temperature. Such researchcould draw upon a wealth of earlier work which examines the social and perceptualdimensions of body space (Hall, 1966; 1973; Scheflen, 1972; 1976; Sommer, 1969; Tuan,1977). Building on Whyte's (1980; 1988) and Gehl's (1987) pioneering work, the devel-opment of a comprehensive and robust model of the interrelations between bodily actionand the topography of the urban landscape could draw together a range of recent workwhich has focused either on the special nature of perception in urban space (Latham,1999; Rodaway, 1994; Savage, 1995) or on specific behaviors (Borden, 2001).

Figure 5. Making statues smoke, Bourke Street Mall, Melbourne.

The shape of urban experience 815

ThresholdsIn simplest terms, a threshold is the point at which a path crosses a boundary. Yet thisis a special kind of boundary. The private space behind the threshold has socialdivisions and structured functions, whereas the public realm outside is relativelydiverse and unregulated. Hillier and Hanson (1984, page 19) suggest this structuringof inside and outside is the most elemental condition of inhabited space: the boundarycontrols the interaction of the two, and ` the space outside the entrance constituted apotential interface between the inhabitant and the stranger.'' Norberg-Schulz (1971,page 58) also emphasizes the importance of urban gates and doors, ``the transitionfrom one domain to another''. He notes: ``The opening is the element that makes theplace come alive, because the basis of any life is interaction with an environment''(page 25). Lynch's (1960) definition of `districts' does hint at the sense of interiority.But the significance of this perception for shaping action is very limited. Being`inside' the district is merely a cue to movement; it does not enable any particularbehaviors.

In my observation of over three hundred separate instances of play behavior in publicspaces throughout central Melbourne, four of the most common locations in whichplayful activities were observed were thresholds of busy public buildings: the mainrailway station, the post office, the State Library, and Parliament House. Examplesof this playful behavior illustrate how the spatial conditions of thresholds framedseveral distinctive kinds of experience. Major thresholds gather together many strang-ers who by necessity have to move through them, thereby forcing them into closebodily proximity. Playful events here can disrupt the instrumental flow of pedestrians(figure 6). A Maori loitering around Flinders Street Railway Station does a briefinformal war dance at the turnstiles, blocking the path of people leaving the city.People often meet and gather on the station steps. This potential audience stimulatesplayful displays including street musicians and people playing Hacky Sack. Sometimesperformances occur on the steps. College initiates ranked up the steps sing `JingleBells'. The raised threshold enhances their exposure.

Thresholds with lower levels of use offer people the opportunity to control theirlevel of exposure (de Jonge, 1967), to manage the problem of overstimulation whichSimmel (1950) had identified with urbanism. Playful events which spill acrossthresholds show that people do not always minimize their contact with new, imprac-tical perceptions. A man dances outside a store's open frontage (figure 7, over).His playöaroused by loud music which spills from the thresholdödistracts passersby.By remaining in public space, he remains free to respond how he wishes. He keeps hisback to the store: rather than yielding attention to the merchandise, the man uses thesound to draw attention to himself. He invites passersby to join him, and several do.His enthusiasm rubs off. Pedestrians passing by a videogame arcade watch playersdancing on sensor pads in time to music (figure 8, over). Many large game screensface toward the street. In contrast to Lynch's findings on practical, goal-directedperceptions, this long, open facade frames the distraction of many passersby. Thisthreshold is liminal: there is a seamless, frictionless blurring which allows people to`forget' that a social boundary exists (Zukin, 1991).Watching crowds spill both into andout of the private pleasure zone, spurring the players' efforts.

Publicly accessible thresholds seldom neatly separate the realms of inside andoutside. Sounds, smells, and warmth drift back and forth across these permeableboundaries, washing over passing bodies, providing sensory information. It is theconstricted width of the thresholds which allows focused observation of these flowsbetween environments. Muzak, like images, can be manipulative and can be abstracted,so as to bring order to behavior in public. Scents can be artificial and deceptive.

816 Q Stevens

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. Play interrupts instrumental flows, entry to Flinders Street Railway Station, Melbourne.

The shape of urban experience 817

The warmth of a store interior is just as alluring as its flashing lights and display cases(Crawford, 1992). But an examination of people's reactions to such manifold condi-tions around thresholds indicates that urban spatial cognition is less regular and lesswell managedöand more playfulöthan a study of images alone might suggest. Unlikeimages, such representations are not often spatially fixed, they continually circulate,intermingle, and are restructured. People often encounter them very incidentally.Members of the public also have significant potential to produce space, rather thanjust perceive it: as sound, as smell, physically through their bodies, as well as throughimages (Gilloch, 1996; Latham, 1999; Savage, 1995).

In subtle ways the small-scale environments of thresholds allow people to movetheir bodies to receive and mobilize various stimuli, and to calibrate their own level ofpublic exposure, as either actor or audience, on a variety of registers: visual, auditory,bodily. Benedikt's work (1979, pages 57 ^ 58; see also Turner, 2003) on isovists providesa technical explanation of the phenomenon: at thresholds, ``an observer ... would belikely to experience a sudden rush of informationöa sudden dilation of his view andexposure tooöwhich may (or may not) suit his intentions or his capacity to processinformation.'' Newman (1972) similarly examines how gradients of defensibility atthresholds provide a variety of control mechanisms for perception, exposure, and action(see also Lynch, 1981). Correctly organized spatial topology and threshold mechanismscan, Newman argues, shape behavior and aid the prevention of crime. Playful activities

Figure 7. Man dancing outside music store, Bourke Street Mall, Melbourne.

818 Q Stevens

at urban thresholds highlight more desirable confluences of recognition, risk, andaccess which these spaces also make possible.

When people move across controlled thresholds between private and public space,they are often seen to make the most of experiences which become possible there, asillustrated by three instances. Teenagers leaving a cinema give each other piggyback rides,as do teenagers leaving after a church service. After a morning tea break outdoors, aworker heading back inside with colleagues accidentally drops his balled-up paper bag,then slides forward to grab it and feigns a basketball shot before stepping through therevolving door. This play can be interpreted as a last attempt to use up excess energyand live more intensely, before returning to the physical passivity and mental disciplineof work. His play suggests a recognition that the threshold is the first and last chanceto act upon the freedoms and inspirations which urban public space provides.

Lynch's category of nodes conflates intersections and thresholds. He notes that` major railroad stations are almost always important city nodes'', and cites Boston'sSouth Station as an example (Lynch, 1960, page 74). But the railway station is not ajunction of paths among which people choose. The station as a whole is a thresholdat which people's paths through public space begin and end. Observations made atMelbourne's Flinders Street Station highlighted the distinctive spatiality of socialrelations at such city-scaled thresholds: they are constraining `ports' (Thiel, 1961), sitesat which many people's instrumental paths predictably converge as they enter ordepart the city center (see Lynch, 1960). This confluence frames close, unexpectedencounters between strangers. Thus,

`Railway stations are characteristic places for dense and varied as well as anony-mous and fleeting encounters, in other words, the type of interactions which wereto mark the atmosphere of life in big cities, described by Benjamin as overflowingwith excitement'' (Habermas, 1997, page 229).

Figure 8. A distracting, `liminal' threshold, Swanston Walk, Melbourne.

The shape of urban experience 819

Space for playIn addition to wayfinding, ``ambiguity, mystery ... surprise and disorder'' may beimportant for judging the merits and problems of the image structure of the city(Lynch, 1991, page 252). The same may be said of an urban setting's wider `usefulness'for behavior. The examination of playful behavior provides focused empirical insightinto the ecological affordances which specific spatial characteristics can provide forplayful perceptions and bodily actions. However, a complete model of the generalstructure of person ^ environment interactions has to account for users' motivations,at least in terms of how spatial conditions themselves motivate particular actions.It now remains to link the analysis of particular instances of behavior to the broadphilosophical and political question of the aims of city design.

The four elements of the behavioral theorization of `play' presented here provide asignificantly expanded definition of urban experience, one which involves far more thanLynch's core interests: seeing, factual recall, point-to-point travel, and emotional security(Lynch, 1960; 1981). This definition also addresses more complex aspects and inter-relations of those ingredients. This greatly enriched depiction of urban spatial experienceperhaps gives cause to rethink the aims which guide the design of urban space.

First, play suggests that not all human action seeks to be efficient or to serve onenarrow instrumental purpose. The ways in which people experience the environmentsurrounding them are not merely instrumental; they are often exploratory, whimsical,unsystematic, and wasteful of energy. Hence there is no overriding normative reasonfor urban structure to always be legible or for city image to be fixed. It cannot bepresumed that legibility alone is sufficient grounds for preserving views to landmarksor maintaining the continuity of paths. Indeed, the wealth of play's contribution topeople's everyday experience brings into question the idea of defining too narrowly theproductive `function' of the built environment; play is also a function (Lefebvre, 1996).

Second, an examination of the separateness of play in `a space apart' focusesattention on the great variation of ways in which people position themselves in relationto edge conditions of urban space, at many different scales, in order to regulate theirlevel of exposure in public. Lynch (1960) noted that perceived edges are not necessarilyimpenetrable. People often seek the tension of boundaries within public space whichare ` defined and yet not too defined'' (Alexander et al, 1977, page 349). It can behypothesized that edges and thresholds are popular sites for play precisely because oftheir looseness and variability of experience.

Third, the four basic types of play (Caillois, 1961) foreground the diversity of thingsthat people are actually doing in public spaces. Lefebvre (1991) points out that the formof the city is not just observed: it is felt with the body and through other senses, and itis made use of in action. Play in the forms of competition and vertigo highlights thatpeople have close, multisensory experiences of the material urban fabric, and some-times choose to test their body against physical limits. These bodily experiences ofspace involve taking risks, rather than maximizing certainty and comfort (Lynch,1960). Perceptions of space and actions in space are not just ` banal, practical (and)effective'' (Lynch, 1981, pages 131 ^ 132), but also affective. Rather than treating thestructure of the built environment as a tool, play pursues the sensory perception ofdistinctive environmental properties as a pleasurable end in itself. Simulation high-lights the importance of meaning to place experience, a dimension which Lynchgenerally tried to set to one side (Lynch, 1991). Through expressive acts, people engagewith the symbolic content of spaces, and bring new meaning to space, for themselvesand others. ` Perception is a creative act'' (Lynch, 1981, page 131), one which canreconfigure people's image of the city.

820 Q Stevens

It is in the fourth form of playful behavior, chance, that urban structure can mostclearly be seen to shape experience. Walter Benjamin noted that urban space waslabyrinthine; its complex topology exposes people to new perceptions in an unex-pected, seemingly haphazard fashion, and frames new juxtapositions. Urban spacetransforms experience: it intensifies, stultifies, diminishes, fetishizes, and sequesters(Gilloch, 1996). Whereas for Lynch the image of the city is quite static and invariant,Benjamin's image of the city is shifting and dialectical (Buck-Morss, 1991; Gilloch,1996). Observation of people's chance interactions suggests that urban conditions ofdensity and diversity and the scale, number, and interrelation of nodes and paths in theurban fabric radically alter the kinds of social encounters which happen there, propa-gating the unplanned and unfamiliar. Acts of play show that the blase attitudedescribed by Simmel (1950) is not the only possible response to the stimulation ofcomplex urban settings and multiplicitous choices of action: ` dense and varied''encounters can be ` overflowing with excitement'' (Habermas, 1997, page 229).

The spatialization of encounters and the diverse pathways different people followillustrate the fourth defining feature of urban play: its publicness. Lynch studiedvarious individuals' perceptions of space independently. In mapping people's paths,Lynch largely overlooks two fundamental things: the bodily act of walking itself, whichis clearly integral to experience of space, and the impact which the presence andactions of numerous other pedestrians in a `swarming mass' has on an individual'sperception and behavior in public (de Certeau, 1993). People's paths through space areintertwined. More than a static artifact which is perceived, the city is defined by thepresence of people, mostly strangers (Lofland, 1973; 1998). Urban space gathers peopleclose together; a myriad of social activities overlap and interpenetrate. Observationshighlight that public settings are stages which frame relations between actors andaudiences. The play of possibility in such encounters is a fundamental characteristicof the urban condition (Lefebvre, 1996). Lynch suggests that surprise may be animportant aspect of urban experience, and surprises happen because there are otherpeople acting independently of the observer.

ConclusionDrawing on Lynch's framework, in this paper I have identified five kinds of spatialelements which structure people's playful experiences in urban space: paths, intersec-tions, boundaries, props, and thresholds. Landmarks and districts have a rather limitedrole in spatial experiences other than the practical task of wayfinding. By contrast,props and thresholds highlight the closeness, richness, and dynamism of bodily experi-ence of urban space, and the spatial framing of roles for other people who are involvedin one's actions. The playful potentials of all five elements highlight that each providesdiverse opportunities for bodily and social experience. They are experienced and useddifferently by different users. A spatial property cannot be readily or absolutely definedas good. Lynch's (1981) extended discussion of access and control emphasizes thatone form of experiential affordance is always evaluated and traded off against others.There are, indeed, benefits to spatial elements which are ambiguous and flexible.

The observations presented here have emphasized how spatial elements framea wide range of noninstrumental urban behaviors: interactions with strangers, newbodily experiences, the discovery of new views, the reading of new meanings. Incomparison with Lynch's work, play in urban space illustrates a richer set of linksbetween spatial form, memory, intention, perception, symbolism, human bodies, andaction. Figure 9 (over) is a preliminary attempt to diagram the relations betweenperception, intention, action, and object which seem to frame people's playful use ofurban public spaces. Moving away from Lynch's pragmatic, object-centered approach,

The shape of urban experience 821

which perhaps explains the popularity of his framework as a normative guide fordesign, this alternate conceptual model of the `playability' of public space is intentioncentered; it begins from the supposition that people have diverse desires for experience.Two specific potentials are illustrated, through two different types of play: the firstis physical exploration of the space, which leads to a bodily sensation; the second isengagement with the meanings of a space, and here the choice of site and the outcomeare directed to the goal of communicating with other people who share the space.

ReferencesAlexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M, Jacobson M, Fiksdahl-King I, Angel S, 1977 A Pattern

Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction (Oxford University Press, NewYork)Amarala L, Ottino J, 2004,``Complex networks: augmenting the framework for the study of complex

systems'' The European Physical Journal B 38 147 ^ 162Bateson G, 1972, `A theory of play and fantasy'', in Steps to an Ecology of Mind Ed. G Bateson

(Aronson, Northvale, NJ) pp 177 ^ 193Benedikt M L, 1979, ` To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields''Environment and Planning B

6 47 ^ 65Borden I, 2001 Skateboarding, Space and the City: Architecture and the Body (Berg, Oxford)Buck-Morss S, 1991The Dialectics of Seeing:Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project (MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA)Caillois R, 1961Man, Play and Games translated by M Barash (Free Press of Glencoe, NewYork)Carmona M, HeathT, Oc T,Tiesdell S, 2003 Public Spaces Urban Places:The Dimensions of Urban

Design (The Architectural Press, London)CrawfordM,1992,` Theworld in a shoppingmall'', inVariationson aThemePark:TheNewAmerican

City and the End of Public Space Ed. M Sorkin (Hill and Wang, NewYork) pp 3 ^ 30Cullen G, 1971The Concise Townscape (The Architectural Press, London)Dalton R, Bafna S, 2003, ` The syntactical image of the city: a reciprocal definition of spatial

elements and spatial syntaxes'', in Proceedings of the 4th International Space Syntax SymposiumLondon http://www.spacesyntax.net/symposia/SSS4/fullpapers/59Dalton-Bafnapaper.pdf

Debord G, 1994 The Society of the Spectacle (Zone Books, NewYork)Debord G,1996, ` Theory of the derive'', inTheory of the Derive and other SituationistWritings on the

CityEds LAndreotti, XCosta (Museu d'Art Comtemporani de Barcelona ACTAR, Barcelona)pp 22 ^ 27

de Certeau M,1993, ` Walking in the city'', inThe Cultural Studies Reader Ed. S During (Routledge,London) pp 151 ^ 160

de Jonge D, 1962, ` Images of urban areas: their structure and psychological foundations'' Journalof the American Institute of Planners 28 266 ^ 276

de Jonge D, 1967, `Applied hodology'' Landscape 17(2) 10 ^ 11Gehl J, 1987 Life Between Buildings (Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork)Gehl J, City of Melbourne, 1994 Places for People City of Melbourne,Town Hall, 90 ^ 120 Swanston

Street, Melbourne 3000

Imageability (Lynch):

`Playability':

objectexperience(perception)

non-goal-directedmovement(exploration)

goal-directedmovement

(performance)

objectnoninstrumental

thought(desire)

"

"

" "

"

"

"

"

instrumentalthought

(cognition)

goal-directedmovement

experience(bodily

sensation)

experience(interpretationby audience)

Figure 9. Imageability and playability.

822 Q Stevens

Gibson J, 1979 The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA)Gilloch G, 1996 Myth and Metropolis (Polity Press, Cambridge)Goffman E, 1982, ` Where the action is'', in Interaction Ritual (Pantheon, NewYork) pp 149 ^ 270Habermas J, 1997, ` Modern and postmodern architecture'', in Rethinking Architecture: A Reader

in Critical Theory Ed. N Leach (Routledge, London) pp 227 ^ 235Hall E T, 1966 The Hidden Dimension: Man's Use of Space in Public and Private (The Bodley Head,

London)Hall E T, 1973 The Silent Language (Anchor, NewYork)Hillier B, Hanson J, 1984 The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)Jameson F, 1984, ` Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism'' New Left Review

number 146, 53 ^ 92Kittler F, 1996, ` The city is a medium'' New Literary History 27 717 ^ 729Latham A, 1999, ` The power of distraction: distraction, tactility, and habit in the work of Walter

Benjamin'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17 451 ^ 473Lefebvre H, 1991The Production of Space (Blackwell, Oxford)LefebvreH,1996Writings onCities translated and edited by EKofman, E Lebas (Blackwell, Oxford)Lofland L,1973AWorld of Strangers:OrderandAction inUrbanPublic Space (Basic Books, NewYork)Lofland L, 1998 The Public Realm (Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY)Lynch K, 1960 The Image of the City (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)Lynch K, 1981Good City Form (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)Lynch K, 1991, ` Reconsidering the image of the city'', in City Sense and City Design:Writings and

Projects ofKevinLynchEdsTBanerjee,MSouthworth (MITPress, Cambridge,MA) pp 247 ^ 256McDonough T, 1994, ` Situationist space''October 67 58 ^ 77NewmanO,1972Defensible Space:CrimePreventionThroughUrbanDesign (Macmillan, NewYork)Norberg-Schulz C, 1971Existence, Space and Architecture (Praeger, NewYork)Norberg-Schulz C, 1980 Genius Loci:Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (Academy Editions,

London)Norberg-Schulz C, 1985 The Concept of Dwelling (Rizzoli, NewYork)Rodaway P, 1994 Sensuous Geographies (Routledge, London)SavageM,1995, ` Walter Benjamin's urban thought: a critical analysis''Environment andPlanningD:

Society and Space 13 201 ^ 216Scheflen A, 1972 Body Language and Social Order (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)Scheflen A, 1976 Human Territories: HowWe Behave in Space ^ Time (Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ)Simmel G, 1950, ` The metropolis and mental life'', in The Sociology of Georg Simmel Ed. KWolff

(The Free Press, NewYork) pp 409 ^ 424Sitte C, 1986, ` City planning according to artistic principles'', in Camillo Sitte:The Birth of Modern

City Planning Eds G Collins, C Collins (Rizzoli, NewYork) pp 129 ^ 332Sommer R,1969Personal Space:The Behavioral Basis of Design (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ)Sternberg E, 2000, `An integrative theory of urban design'' Journal of the American Planning

Association 66 265 ^ 278Theil P, 1961, `A sequence-experience notation for architectural and urban spaces'' Town Planning

Review 32 33 ^ 52Thrift N, 1997, ` The still point: resistance, expressive embodiment and dance'', in Geographies of

Resistance Eds S Pile, M Keith (Routledge, London) pp 124 ^ 151Thwaites K, 2001, ` Experiential landscape place: an exploration of space and experience in

neighbourhood landscape architecture'' Landscape Research 26 245 ^ 255Trancik R, 1986 Finding Lost Space:Theories of Urban Design (Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork)Tuan Y-F, 1977 Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (Minnesota University Press,

Minneapolis, MN)Turner A, 2003, `Analyzing the visual dynamics of spatial morphology''Environment and Planning B:

Planning and Design 30 657 ^ 676Venturi R, 1967 Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (Museum of Modern Art, NewYork)WhyteW H, 1980 The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces (Conservation Foundation,Washington,

DC)WhyteW H, 1988 City: Rediscovering the Center (Doubleday, NewYork)Zukin S, 1991Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to DisneyWorld (University of California Press,

Berkeley, CA)

The shape of urban experience 823

ß 2006 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the E&P website for personal researchby members of subscribing organisations. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or otheronline distribution system) without permission of the publisher.